K-Means Clustering Algorithm–Based Functional Magnetic Resonance for Evaluation of Regular Hemodialysis on Brain Function of Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research was to evaluate the effects of regular hemodialysis (HD) on the brain function of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) based on improved k-means clustering algorithm (k-means) was proposed to scan the brains of 30 regular dialysis patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (experimental group) and 30 normal volunteers (control group). The proposed algorithm was compared with the traditional k-means algorithm and mean shift algorithm and applied to the magnetic resonance scan of patients with ESRD on long-term regular HD. The results showed that the neuropsychological cognitive function (NSCF) evaluation result of the test group was much better than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically obvious ( P < 0.05 ). The results of blood biochemistry, Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA) in the test group showed no statistical difference compared with those in the control group. The running time of the improved k-means algorithm was dramatically shorter than that of traditional k-means algorithm, showing statistical difference ( P < 0.05 ). Comparison among the improved and traditional k-means algorithm and mean shift algorithm suggested that the improved k-means algorithm showed a lower error rate for image segmentation, and the differences were statistically remarkable ( P < 0.05 ). In conclusion, the improved k-means algorithm showed better time efficiency and the lowest error rate in processing rs-fMRI images than the traditional k-means algorithm and mean shift algorithm, and the effects of regular HD on the brains of patients with ESRD were evaluated effectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".